Lasting Foundations: Hedge Fund Reinsurance Structures and Permanent Capital

1. Prime Brokerage Perspectives
Lasting Foundations: Hedge Fund Reinsurance Structures
and Permanent Capital
Fourth Quarter 2013
In this edition of Prime Brokerage Perspectives, we examine property and casualty reinsurance structures as permanent capital
solutions for hedge fund managers seeking to build lasting fund management platforms with diversified investor bases and multiple
revenue streams.
Introduction
The traditional hedge fund model has changed relatively little over the years. The basics of the structure are well known:
a flow-through vehicle, be it a limited partnership or a limited liability company, which allows for rolling subscriptions and
typically provides investors with the ability to redeem capital at regular intervals, most typically on a quarterly basis
subsequent to an initial lock-up and subject to certain notice requirements. As the hedge fund industry has matured and
evolved over the years, managers have looked to different structural options in order to raise and retain assets, often
with the underlying goal of seeking longer-term capital. Leading up to and during the financial crisis, many managers
employed private equity-like side pockets or special purpose vehicles (SPVs) as longer-duration mechanisms to invest
in illiquid securities. Those structures created difficulties when the financial crisis struck and numerous hedge fund
managers found it challenging to satisfy redemption requests given the illiquid nature of the underlying investments.
More recently, as a result of regulatory pressures and bank deleveraging, numerous credit-oriented hedge fund
managers have sought to raise hybrid vehicles with longer lock-ups to exploit growing opportunities with respect to less
liquid assets such as commercial real estate loans, distressed corporate credits, second lien loans and debt instruments
of companies in liquidation. Such vehicles include truncated private equity structures with drawdown features, finite
subscription periods and terms, and distribution waterfall profit allocations; they also include structures that combine
rolling lock-ups and rolling subscriptions with limited liquidity. Vehicles in the latter category typically have initial lock-ups
ranging from 1 to 3 years during which redemptions are not permitted followed by a soft lock-up during which
redemptions are allowed subject to a penalty. Subsequent to the various lock-ups, investors can redeem capital, usually
on a quarterly basis. 1
Another more recent trend is the growing interest among hedge fund managers in permanent capital structures – i.e.,
vehicles that provide a continual source of capital and therefore obviate the prospect of redemptions. While numerous
permanent capital options are available for hedge funds, the purpose of this Perspectives piece is to examine property
and casualty reinsurance structures that hedge fund managers can use to that end. This report analyzes the economics
of those structures and explains the benefits and drawbacks that various hedge fund property and casualty reinsurance
models present. The goal of this report is to provide hedge fund executives with an understanding of those vehicles and
of whether such structures are suited to their firms and strategies.
1
J.P. Morgan, Prime Brokerage Perspectives, “The New Convergence: Hybrid Hedge Fund Structures and Longer-Biased Strategies,” February 2013.
1

2. Prime Brokerage Perspectives – 4Q 2013
Incentives for Reinsurance Structures and Permanent Capital
Managers
Permanent capital structures, and reinsurance vehicles in particular, are potentially alluring for hedge fund
managers because they offer the prospect of a significantly expanded and diversified investor base, including
defined contribution plans. Reinsurance vehicles in particular may offer the benefit of tax efficiencies. As “active”
businesses, income from insurance companies is tax deferred (until the position is sold) rather than taxed as
ordinary income or capital gains on an annual basis. Lastly, structures that offer a continuous source of capital –
be they publicly listed reinsurance vehicles or other permanent capital solutions – also eliminate the need to
fundraise from limited partners, which, as hedge fund principals know all too well, is a high-touch, often expensive
endeavor that is becoming increasingly challenging. By pursuing a publicly listed reinsurance vehicle, hedge fund
managers essentially shift the burden of fundraising to a lead underwriter and syndicate in the IPO process.
Permanent capital structures also eliminate the potential for limited partner redemptions.
Investors
Such structures also may be compelling for investors. In contrast to the traditional hedge fund model, publicly
listed hedge fund reinsurance vehicles can provide investors daily liquidity. Additionally, such structures offer
retail investors the ability to invest with best-in-breed alternative asset managers to which such investors
ordinarily would not have access. Finally, certain permanent capital structures such as reinsurance vehicles may
offer the prospect of returns that are minimally correlated to other risk assets and which can therefore be used as
a means of diversification.
With these incentives in mind, we now turn to some of the key structural options along with their attendant
benefits and limitations.
Figure 1: Incentives for reinsurance permanent capital vehicles
Manager Perspective
Investor Perspective
Perpetual capital source
Liquidity
Tax efficiencies
Tax efficiencies for investors
Premium income streams + investment income streams
Access to asset classes not typically available to retail investors
Access to broader class of potential investors
Access to advice of prominent investment managers
Secondary market provides alternative to redemptions
Potential for uncorrelated returns
Branding opportunity and elevated profile
Diversification
Hedge Fund Reinsurance Vehicles
Economics & Other Key Issues
Reinsurers allow primary insurers to distribute the risks from the policies they underwrite, thereby providing
insurance companies with additional capacity to write more policies. In exchange for agreeing to pay a portion of
the claims for which an insurer may be liable, reinsurers are entitled to premium payments from the insurers.
Reinsurers may become liable on the underlying claims if the originating insurance company either defaults or
cannot satisfy its obligations.
2

3. Prime Brokerage Perspectives – 4Q 2013
Reinsurance Agreements
Reinsurance contracts can be structured on a percentage basis whereby the reinsurer agrees to pay a
percentage of the underlying claim in return for a percentage of the premium. Alternatively, they can be structured
based on a loss threshold whereby the reinsurer agrees to pay the share of a claim above a pre-determined
amount.
Additionally, reinsurance contracts can be structured on a treaty basis whereby multiple reinsurers share the risk
pro rata or according to varying percentages. Reinsurance agreements can also be written on a facultative, i.e., a
risk-by-risk, basis.
Revenue Streams
Reinsurance offers two prospective revenue streams: underwriting returns and investment returns. With respect
to underwriting returns, reinsurance firms collect premiums from the originating insurers in exchange for sharing
the risks from the underlying policies. Reinsurance firms can generate investment returns based on the concept of
float. Reinsurers receive premium payments during the life of the underlying policy but are not required to pay out
on the related claims until a later date. The premium payments therefore provide reinsurers with a significant timevalue-of-money benefit because those premiums can be invested at a potentially high rate of return over time.
Because of the considerable lag between the receipt of premium streams and the payout on the underlying
claims, the premiums provide reinsurers with investable capital at virtually no cost since that capital does not
require interest payments. Hence, the concept of float, which is akin to leverage albeit with no interest payments.
(Many conventional reinsurance firms have traditionally invested premium streams in highly liquid, conservative,
low-yielding instruments.) Reinsurance therefore offers hedge funds the prospect of management fees and
incentive fees based on capital that is essentially free and for which traditional fundraising efforts are not required.
Several hedge fund reinsurance vehicles have come to market in recent years, both as publicly listed and private
entities. Such vehicles include Paulson & Co Inc.’s PaCRe Ltd. (“PaCRe”), which is 10% owned by Validus
Reinsurance Ltd., Greenlight Capital Re Ltd. (“Greenlight Re”) and, more recently, Third Point Reinsurance Ltd.
(“Third Point Re”). Although these entities have several structural distinctions (discussed in greater detail below),
it is typical for the reinsurance vehicles themselves to be structured as corporations rather than as flow-through
vehicles such as limited liability companies. It also is common to use a holding company with a fund structure
such as a master-feeder as the owner. Alternatively, the reinsurance company may be owned by the investment
management entity with the master or feeder fund set up as an investor in the company.
3

4. Prime Brokerage Perspectives – 4Q 2013
Figure 2: Overview of publicly listed alternative reinsurers
Greenlight Re
Third Point Re
• Established in 2004, Greenlight Re (NASDAQ: GLRE) is a
specialist property and casualty reinsurance company based
in the Cayman Islands
• Established in 2011 as a private entity, Third Point Re is a property
and casualty reinsurer domiciled in Bermuda, which went public in
August 2013
• Initial capitalization of $300 million
• Initial capitalization of $750 million
• Current market capitalization of $1.2 billion
• Current market capitalization of $1.7 billion
• Greenlight Re writes a combination of global property,
casualty and specialty reinsurance distributed primarily
through the broker market. The company writes worldwide
with concentration of cedants in the U.S., U.K. and Europe
• Third Point Re writes a combination of personal and commercial
lines, both short and medium tails, and distributes primarily through
the broker market. The majority of business is generated from the
U.S., but the company expects to increase its presence in Europe,
Asia and South America
• Rated “A” by A.M. Best
• Rated “A-” by A.M. Best
Sources: J.P. Morgan Financial Institutions Group, company websites, A.M. Best reports and news filings
Jurisdictional Issues
Hedge fund managers contemplating reinsurance vehicles must make a determination as to the domicile of the
reinsurance company. The Cayman Islands, Ireland and Bermuda are favorable jurisdictions for reinsurance
vehicles. The Cayman Islands, where Greenlight Re is domiciled, and Ireland offer beneficial tax regimes for
reinsurance businesses. Both jurisdictions also offer a broad array of experienced service providers.
Bermuda is nonetheless the jurisdiction to which most hedge funds have looked to launch reinsurance vehicles.
Bermuda is particularly attractive for reinsurance companies for several reasons. First, from a purely commercial
perspective, Bermuda has evolved into an epicenter for the industry. Accordingly, firms that are based in
Bermuda will tend to have access to the most deal flow. Bermuda is also a hub for much of the top talent in the
industry. Second, from a business infrastructure perspective, Bermuda has an especially deep well of service
providers such as law firms, which are intimately versed in the industry’s best practices and precedent. Third,
from a balance sheet perspective, Bermuda law stipulates only minimal capital requirements for reinsurance
companies. Finally, Bermuda law does not impose onerous requirements as to how reinsurance companies
should invest the capital they generate from premium payments. Reinsurance firms therefore have considerable
flexibility in how they invest and manage premium-generated capital. Several of the existing hedge fund
reinsurance vehicles are domiciled in Bermuda, including PaCRe and Third Point Re.
Structural Options
Hedge fund managers that decide to enter the reinsurance business have several models available to structure
their reinsurance firms. As a threshold issue, hedge fund managers must choose between launching a new,
independent reinsurance entity versus entering into a partnership or joint venture with a third-party reinsurer.
For hedge fund managers who opt to establish stand-alone reinsurance platforms, there are several permutations
from which to choose. Here, however, we focus on two key models, which we refer to as “Hedge Fund Re 1.0”
and “Hedge Fund Re 2.0.” A third option discussed here – “Hedge Fund Re 3.0” – entails partnering with an
existing reinsurance company. There are not yet any publicly listed precedents for the 3.0 model.
4

5. Prime Brokerage Perspectives – 4Q 2013
1. Hedge Fund Re 1.0
The first option, based on existing precedent, entails launching a stand-alone reinsurance company. The property
and casualty reinsurance policies that the company writes are distributed primarily through a network of brokers,
which are not affiliated with the company. The capital generated from the premium streams is invested exclusively
by a fund run by the manager that owns the reinsurance vehicle. A fund could be formed specifically to manage
the reinsurance company float. Alternatively, the float could be invested in an existing fund or a parallel vehicle
pari passu with the manager’s other investors. An important feature of this option is that policies, including
property and casualty as well as catastrophe risk, are written, and coverage is provided by, the reinsurance
subsidiary directly. The reinsurance company is therefore exposed directly to the risk of payouts from losses on
the underlying policies, including those related to catastrophe risk.
Figure 3: Stand-alone hedge fund reinsurance operating company structure
Operating Company Structure
Founding investors
Follow-on investors
Debt
Hold Co.
Asset
Management
Fee
Bermuda class IV reinsurer
(Full operating company with
independent management
team)
Hedge fund
Investment
Fees
Source: J.P. Morgan Financial Institutions Group
Benefits
A key benefit of this option for hedge fund managers is that by forming a new, stand-alone reinsurance company,
a manager has direct control and oversight of the underwriting operation, including the ability to cherry pick talent
to run the business. Additionally, depending on the quality of the management team hired to run the reinsurer and
the corresponding quality of its underwriting, this model has the potential to generate attractive returns from both
underwriting, which is not correlated to other risk assets, and from investments.
Drawbacks
There are several possible disadvantages to this model. First, the reinsurance company is exposed directly to
catastrophe risk on the underlying policies, which can be especially volatile. Accordingly, if the coverage being
provided includes high-risk catastrophe reinsurance, the performance of the company has the potential to be
somewhat volatile (although a company may limit the amount of catastrophe risk it underwrites). Prospective
volatility may, in turn, exert a drag on the price-to-book multiple of the reinsurance company over time.
5

6. Prime Brokerage Perspectives – 4Q 2013
Another disadvantage is the time, effort and expense of forming a new reinsurance company. It will take some
time for the reinsurer to build up a book of underwritten policies, which means that the premium base will initially
be limited. Concomitantly, the amount of float available for the manager to invest will be limited until the book of
underwritten policies achieves scale. High overhead from the start-up costs of launching an independent reinsurer
and a small initial premium base may result in an elevated expense ratio. A high expense ratio could in turn exert
pressure on the company’s valuation.
2. Hedge Fund Re 2.0
The second model is similar to the first option, as it entails the formation of a stand-alone entity. Additionally, the
premium income that the reinsurer generates is invested in a fund overseen by the manager that owns the
reinsurer. A key structural distinction with the second model is its use of a separately capitalized “cat” fund, in
which the reinsurance company is an investor, to provide higher risk property catastrophe and excess of loss
coverage. As in the 1.0 model, the reinsurance company itself will still underwrite lower-risk property and casualty
policies. By using a separately capitalized entity to provide higher risk property catastrophe coverage, the
reinsurer can limit its exposure to losses on the underlying policies and thereby insulate its balance sheet from the
associated risks. The cat fund can be structured to sit above a special purpose reinsurer that underwrites
collateralized property catastrophe reinsurance contracts.
Third Point Re, which went public on August 14, 2013, is the template for the 2.0 model. Based in Bermuda, Third
Point Re is a specialty property and casualty reinsurer. A distinctive feature of Third Point Re is its use of a
separately capitalized cat fund, Third Point Reinsurance Opportunities Fund (the “Cat Fund”), to provide
catastrophe and excess of loss reinsurance rather than doing so through the company itself. (Third Point Re still
underwrites property and casualty reinsurance directly.) Third Point Re formed the Cat Fund in conjunction with
2
Hiscox Ltd., a Bermuda-based reinsurer. Third Point Re has a 53% interest in the Cat Fund, Hiscox has a 32%
interest and Dan Loeb and other investors share the remainder. The Cat Fund provides catastrophe and excess
of loss coverage in the U.S., Europe and Japan through catastrophe insurance and collateralized products such
as cat bonds, insurance-linked securities and industry loss warrants. A special purpose catastrophe reinsurer,
which the Cat Fund owns, underwrites the collateralized products.
The Cat Fund and the special purpose reinsurer are controlled by a management company (the “Cat Fund
Manager”) of which Third Point Re owns 85%. Hiscox owns the remaining 15%. The Cat Fund Manager charges
a management fee equal to 1% per annum of assets under management (“AUM”) for investors with a two-year
lock-up and 1.5% for investors with no lock-up. It also charges an incentive fee equal to 10% of the profits for
3
investors with the lock-up or 15% for those without it. These fee streams have the potential to grow as AUM in
the Cat Fund scales over time through commitments from outside investors.
2
J.P. Morgan North America Equity Research, Third Point Reinsurance Ltd., September 9, 2013, available at https://jpmm.com/research/content/GPS-1205541-0.
3
Ibid.
6

7. Prime Brokerage Perspectives – 4Q 2013
Figure 4: Third Point Re
Hiscox
Third Point Re.
$30 Million Investment
New Investors
$10 Million Investment
$50 Million Investment
Third Point LLC Employees
15% Ownership
85% Ownership
Cat Fund Manager
Investment
Management
Agreement
Cat Reinsurer
Cat Fund
Individual Securities
Sources: J.P. Morgan Equity Research, public company filings
Benefits
The downside protection that this structure affords enables the reinsurer to offer higher risk, but potentially
lucrative, catastrophe reinsurance with limited exposure to its balance sheet and therefore minimal impact on its
rating. The net result may be higher profitability on the company’s underwriting returns and limited volatility for the
reinsurance company’s performance.
Because many clients require catastrophe protection as part of a reinsurance package, Third Point Re’s
catastrophe insurance offering enables it to target a larger pool of customers than if it did not do so. Third Point
Re’s ability to provide such coverage stems directly from its use of the Cat Fund feature. Moreover, because Third
Point Re provides catastrophe coverage through a separate entity, the company’s exposure to related losses is
4
limited to its investment in the Cat Fund – approximately $50 million. Consequently, the company’s balance
sheet is shielded from catastrophe risk but Third Point Re benefits from the ability to provide such coverage.
Drawbacks
This model shares some of the drawbacks of the first option, the most obvious of which is the time and expense
associated with building out an independent reinsurance platform, including the recruitment and hiring of a team.
Concomitantly, as with option 1, there will be a lag as the reinsurer builds its underwriting book, which initially will
limit the premium income that the reinsurer can generate and the float that it has available to invest. Before the
underwriting portfolio achieves critical mass, the reinsurer’s expense ratio may therefore be elevated.
4
Ibid.
7

8. Prime Brokerage Perspectives – 4Q 2013
3. Hedge Fund Re 3.0
While options 1 and 2 are based on publicly listed precedents, option 3 is not. The key difference between this
option and the preceding models is that the third structure does not entail the formation of a full-fledged, standalone reinsurance company. Rather, option 3 entails the hedge fund manager partnering with an established
reinsurer through a joint venture so that the hedge fund essentially outsources the underwriting function to a thirdparty reinsurance firm. (The joint venture unit, a separate legal entity, will require the hiring of a magagement
team, but primarily for purposes of administration and corporate governance.) The hedge fund will in turn contract
with the reinsurer to manage an agreed-upon percentage of the float generated from the premium streams.
Accordingly, the hedge fund is able to concentrate on its core competency of generating investment returns on
the float.
This arrangement is symbiotic for both the third-party reinsurer and the hedge fund. The reinsurer is able to
diversify its investment portfolio and, hopefully, earn attractive risk-adjusted returns with some downside
5
protection given hedge funds’ asymmetric return profile. Additionally, because the reinsurance company is
providing the hedge fund with a stable capital base without the typical risk of redemptions, it may be able to
negotiate favorable terms on fees.
Benefits
The primary benefits of this model for the hedge fund are three-fold.
•
•
•
First, the hedge fund gains access to a permanent capital source. The cost of that capital, i.e., the float, is
de minimus.
Second, the hedge fund can diversify its revenue streams by sharing in the underwriting profits at an agreedupon percentage.
Third, by outsourcing the actual reinsurance business, this model negates the main drawbacks of forming a
ful-fledged, stand-alone entity, including time, cost and an elevated expense ratio as the reinsurer builds its
underwriting portfolio. By contracting with an established reinsurance firm, the hedge fund can garner
immediate access to a well-developed underwriting portfolio, which is the product of superior risk analytics
and that has already achieved scale. Accordingly, there will be no lag time as the portfolio is developed.
Drawbacks
The primary disadvantage of this model is the added expense since there will be a revenue sharing arrangement
with the third party reinsurer with respect to both the underwriting returns and the investment returns. However,
the benefits of access to a well developed, large-scale underwriting portfolio – and the immediate availability of
investable float – may outweigh that disadvantage.
5
J.P. Morgan, Prime Brokerage Perspectives, “Defined Benefit Plans and Hedge Funds: Enhancing Returns and Managing Volatility,” Second Quarter 2013.
8

9. Prime Brokerage Perspectives – 4Q 2013
Figure 5: Illustrative example of option 3
Partnership or JV Structure
Debt
Investors
Third party reinsurer
Hedge fund
JV
Fees for
underwriting on
behalf of
reinsurance
company JV
Asset
Management
Fee
Investment
Fees
Source: J.P. Morgan Financial Institutions Group
Conclusion: Overall Benefits and Drawbacks
While the reinsurance business is potentially alluring for hedge fund firms, it also carries risks for new investment
management entrants. First, and most obviously, reinsurance underwriting and coverage is far afield from the
core competencies of most hedge fund executives, be they portfolio managers or chief operating officers. There is
a high degree of execution risk in hiring, overseeing and retaining a team that has the experience and rolodex to
do so. Second, new entrants in the industry must contend with origination risk because reinsurers provide
coverage on policies underwritten by insurance firms that they do not control. It is therefore paramount that any
new entrant structure its coverage to minimize the degree of origination risk whether through an outsourced
model, a separately capitalized entity such as a cat fund or otherwise. Finally, there is of course payout risk on
claims to the underlying insureds. While such risk can be mitigated to a degree via skilled underwriting, the risk of
having to make substantial payouts cannot be minimized entirely. Because of the payout risk, reinsurance
vehicles are more appropriate for hedge funds that run liquid strategies where the assets are capable of real time
valuation and which can generate cash to satisfy imminent liquidity needs. By contrast, managers that oversee
less liquid strategies and funds with longer lock-ups will not align well with reinsurance businesses.
Reinsurance companies also must secure ratings from A.M. Best. If the premium income is not invested in liquid
assets, it will be difficult to secure an A or A- rating, which any reinsurer would need. This is another reason why
managers that oversee liquid strategies align well with reinsurance businesses whereas hedge funds that invest
in less liquid assets do not.
Another issue that prospective entrants should consider – though not a risk factor per se – is that significant
capital has flowed into the reinsurance industry in recent years, partly as a result of investors straining for yield
amidst today’s low rate environment. Consequently, there is significant downward pressure on premium prices.
Reinsurers in today’s market are therefore price takers.
Accordingly, hedge fund managers seeking to access permanent capital through reinsurance vehicles should
balance such considerations against the benefits that the structures discussed herein can provide, including a
long-term asset base, low cost of capital and diversified revenue streams that are less correlated. We welcome
inquiries from managers interested in discussing such solutions in more detail.
9

10. Prime Brokerage Perspectives – 4Q 2013
Important Information and Disclosures
Contact Us:
Alessandra Tocco
Kenny King, CFA
alessandra.tocco@jpmorgan.com
212-272-9132
kenny.king@jpmorgan.com
212-622-5043
Christopher M. Evans
Stacy Bartolomeo
c.m.evans@jpmorgan.com
212-622-5693
stacy.bartolomeo@jpmorgan.com
212-272-3471
This material (“Material”) is provided by J.P. Morgan’s Prime Brokerage business for informational purposes only. It is not a product of J.P. Morgan’s Research
Departments. This Material includes data and viewpoints from various departments and businesses within JPMorgan Chase & Co., as well as from third parties
unaffiliated with JPMorgan Chase & Co. and its subsidiaries. The generalized hedge fund and institutional investor information presented in this Material, including
trends referred to herein, are not intended to be representative of the hedge fund and institutional investor communities at large. This Material is provided directly
to professional and institutional investors and is not intended for nor may it be provided to retail clients.
This Material has not been verified for accuracy or completeness by JPMorgan Chase & Co. or by any of its subsidiaries, affiliates, successors, assigns, agents, or
by any of their respective officers, directors, employees, agents or advisers (collectively, “J.P. Morgan”), and J.P. Morgan does not guarantee this Material in any
respect, including but not limited to, its accuracy, completeness or timeliness. Information for this Material was collected and compiled during the stated timeframe,
if applicable. Past performance is not a guarantee of future results. J.P. Morgan has no obligation to update any portion of this Material. This Material may not be
relied upon as definitive, and shall not form the basis of any decisions. It is the user’s responsibility to independently confirm the information presented in this
Material, and to obtain any other information deemed relevant to any decision made in connection with the subject matter contained in this Material. Users of this
Material are encouraged to seek their own professional experts as they deem appropriate including, but not limited to, tax, financial, legal, investment or equivalent
advisers, in relation to the subject matter covered by this Material. J.P. Morgan makes no representations (and to the extent permitted by law, all implied
warranties and representations are hereby excluded), and J.P. Morgan takes no responsibility for the information presented in this Material. This Material is
provided for informational purposes only and for the intended users’ use only, and no portion of this Material may be reproduced or distributed for any purpose
without the express written permission of J.P. Morgan. The provision of this Material does not constitute, and shall not be construed as constituting or be deemed
to constitute, a solicitation of, or offer or inducement to provide or carry on, any type of investment service or activity by J.P. Morgan. Under all applicable laws,
including, but not limited to, the US Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended, or the US Internal Revenue Code of 1986 or the Financial
Services and Markets Act 2000 (Regulated Activities) Order 2001, as amended, no portion of this Material shall constitute, or be construed as constituting or be
deemed to constitute “investment advice” for any purpose, and J.P. Morgan shall not be considered as a fiduciary of any person or institution for any purpose in
relation to Material. This Material shall not be construed as constituting or be deemed to constitute an invitation to treat in respect of, an offer or a solicitation of an
offer to buy or sell any securities or constitute advice to buy or sell any security. This Material is not intended as tax, legal, financial or equivalent advice and
should not be regarded or used as such. The Material should not be relied upon for compliance.
An investment in a hedge fund is speculative and involves a high degree of risk, which each investor must carefully consider. Returns generated from an
investment in a hedge fund may not adequately compensate investors for the business and financial risks assumed. An investor in hedge funds could lose all or a
substantial amount of its investment. While hedge funds are subject to market risks common to other types of investments, including market volatility, hedge funds
employ certain trading techniques, such as the use of leveraging and other speculative investment practices that may increase the risk of investment loss. Other
risks associated with hedge fund investments include, but are not limited to, the fact that hedge funds: can be highly illiquid; are not required to provide periodic
pricing or valuation information to investors; may involve complex tax structures and delays in distributing important tax information; are not subject to the same
regulatory requirements as mutual funds; often charge higher fees and the high fees may offset the fund’s trading profits; may have a limited operating history; can
have performance that is volatile; may have a fund manager who has total trading authority over the fund and the use of a single adviser applying generally similar
trading programs could mean a lack of diversification, and consequentially, higher risk; may not have a secondary market for an investor’s interest in the fund and
none may be expected to develop; may have restrictions on transferring interests in the fund; and may affect a substantial portion of its trades on foreign
exchanges.
J.P. Morgan may (as agent or principal) have positions (long or short), effect transactions or make markets in securities or financial instruments mentioned herein
(or derivatives with respect thereto), or provide advice or loans to, or participate in the underwriting or restructuring of the obligations of, issuers mentioned herein.
J.P. Morgan may engage in transactions in a manner inconsistent with the views discussed herein.
© 2013 JPMorgan Chase & Co. All rights reserved. All product names, company names and logos mentioned herein are trademarks or registered trademarks of
their respective owners. Access to financial products and execution services is offered through J.P. Morgan Securities LLC (“JPMS”) and J.P. Morgan Securities
plc (“JPMS plc”). Clearing, prime brokerage and custody services are provided by J.P. Morgan Clearing Corp. (“JPMCC”) in the US and JPMS plc in the UK. JPMS
and JPMCC are separately registered US broker dealer affiliates of JPMorgan Chase & Co., and are each members of FINRA, NYSE and SIPC. JPMS plc is
authorized by the Prudential Regulation Authority and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority and the Prudential Regulation Authority in the UK. J.P. Morgan
Securities (Asia Pacific) Limited is regulated by the Hong Kong Monetary Authority and the Securities and Futures Commission of Hong Kong.
This material is provided by J.P. Morgan’s Prime Brokerage business for informational purposes only. It is not a product of J.P. Morgan’s Research Departments.
For Institutional Investors only. For the intended recipient only
10